My name is Kaitlin Raimi and I am an Assistant Professor at the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. My research focuses on how people think and act when it comes to climate change, including how social motivations can promote or prevent sustainable solutions. I'm particularly interested in how people compare their own beliefs and behaviors to those of other people, how the desire to make a good impression can influence people to mitigate climate change, and how one adopting one sustainable behavior affects later environmental decisions. I also have ongoing work on how framing climate change in different ways affects people's understanding of climate change and support for climate policies.

My name is Alex Maki and I am a Postdoctoral Research Fellow with the Vanderbilt Institute for Energy and Environment and the Vanderbilt Climate Change Research Network. My research uses theory-based behavior change interventions to understand and influence environmental (e.g., energy use), health (e.g., eating choices), and prosocial (e.g., volunteerism) behaviors. Specifically, I am interested in how interventions can help people initiate and maintain changes to multiple, related behaviors over time (e.g., both conserve energy and water at home). I also examine the social dynamics surrounding environmental behaviors, including who chooses to talk to other people (e.g., friends or family) about environmental issues, and how we can help people have more constructive conversations about important environmental issues, including climate change.

My name is Paul Stern. For over two decades I was staff director of the Committee on the Human Dimensions of Global Change at the U.S. National Research Council. At the same time, I have been conducting research with colleagues outside the Council on topics that have included household energy consumption, the effectiveness of policies to reduce greenhouse has emissions by changing consumer behavior, and people's understanding of various kinds of environmental risks. Understanding the risks of climate change is a real challenge because of its long-term nature and the difficulty of making confident predictions of what risks particular communities will face. This paper is part of an effort to find ways to help people think through the risks without having to understand all the scientific details.

We wanted to know whether using analogies helps people understand key factors that are important for climate change decisions, including uncertainties about when and where serious damage may occur, its unprecedented and progressive nature, and trade-offs in limiting climate change. Specifically, across two studies, we looked at whether comparing climate change to medical decision-making, disaster preparedness, or courtroom trials helped people to understand these issues. We found that disaster preparedness and a courtroom trial analogy weren't very helpful, and that none of the analogies helped people understand the basic science of climate change. However, we did find that comparing climate change to a medical decision helped people--especially political conservatives--to to better recognize several decision-relevant attributes of climate change.

Science AMAs are posted early to give readers a chance to ask questions and vote on the questions of others before the AMA starts.

Guests of /r/science have volunteered to answer questions; please treat them with due respect. Comment rules will be strictly enforced, and uncivil or rude behavior will result in a loss of privileges in /r/science.

If you have scientific expertise, please verify this with our moderators by getting your account flaired with the appropriate title. Instructions for obtaining flair are here: reddit Science Flair Instructions (Flair is automatically synced with /r/EverythingScience as well.)

I've seen some compelling arguments for appealing to the values of those who do not accept anthropogenic climate change, and trying to agree on beneficial goals rather than reaching a consensus on the specific reasoning for them--such as switching to alternative fuels to boost the American economy, vs to protect the environment. What do you see as the risks and benefits of that approach, compared with arguing directly for acceptance of climate change?

Kaitlin, Paul, and Alex here:
There has been a fair amount of research in recent years trying to pinpoint effective ways to talk to people who are dismissive or unsure of climate change in a way consistent with their values. For example, a recent paper found that discussing how taking care of the environment is patriotic made political conservatives more open to climate science. This makes sense; not everyone finds the same argument compelling.

Talking about more general concerns, such as health or national defense considerations associated with environmental issues, is one way to potentially reach more people and not turn off climate change skeptics. Reaching that wider audience, and bypassing having to address people’s gut reactions to climate science, is certainly an appealing approach.

The risk of trying to appeal to values for persuading people is that this approach to climate communication is still relatively new. Sometimes this approach works and sometimes it doesn’t (or can even backfire if people feel like they are just being hoodwinked). This is why we have focused on not trying to persuade people of the right action but rather helping them develop a deeper understanding of the problem so that they can make their own decisions.

I'm a first year graduate student in meteorology, therefore I am a TA and have the pleasure of grading for the intro level classes. One of the professors doesn't believe in anthropogenic climate change, and though he 'tries' to teach in a manner that hides his bias, it definitely shines through in the final papers the students write. When I'm grading, how can I effectively portray to students that it is indeed a real and serious thing? In the same vein (yet a different class), the professor is going to start talking about climate change. These kids are freshmen and have a very elementary understanding of weather and climate. What's an effective way to teach them and to get them to think critically about the subject?

Next week my school is putting on a student showcase so that we can present our research. Within this there is going to be a round table discussion about climate change and how we as scientists communicate it. Here are a few of the sample questions that we will be discussing :
-Do we need to change the way scientists are educated (e.g., broaden, add more "soft skills" or social science)?
-To what extent do scientists need to be involved in decision making?
-How much responsibility do scientists (as opposed to journalists or school teachers) hold for increasing public understanding of scientific/environmental issues?

Kaitlin, Paul, and Alex here: We are certainly not meteorologists ourselves but have heard that some meteorologists are skeptical of our ability to predict long term climate change due to the difficulties of predicting short term weather. The modeling approaches are different for weather and climate. And what your students may not know is that the research shows that the majority of metereologists do believe in anthropogenic climate change (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1) and that they can have a really important and helpful role in educating the public about climate change (http://www.climateaccess.org/sites/default/files/Zhao_TV%20weathercasts.pdf).

We think it’s absolutely important for natural scientists to communicate in ways that people can understand. In our paper, we’ve been trying to find useful analogies that would help people understand important characteristics of climate change. We think that natural scientists can help in this effort as well, and would encourage them and you to talk to and learn from communication specialists who study the best ways to do this.

Kaitlin, Paul, and Alex here: Kaitlin here: Reforestation is certainly one way to sequester carbon and most climate change models suggest that we need to both slow emissions and remove carbon from the atmosphere to avoid the worst consequences of climate change. For those who are interested, I recommend the National Research Council reports on Climate Intervention, which talk about the potential benefits and costs of reforestation and other forms of carbon dioxide removal (you can find them [linktext[(https://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/other-reports-on-climate-change/climate-intervention-reports/).

So if you think that reforestation is the goal, then what you’d need to do is get people to support it, by planting trees on their own land and/or supporting policy measures to plant large forests. To do that, you need to give them some understanding of why this matters, but that is not enough. You also need to tie it into the values that they hold (whether those are values to help the environment or values to help other people, or even how this could help their own self-interest).

Even though there might not be much that most people can do as individuals in terms of reforestation, they can support larger policies or community actions so you may want to focus your effort there.

I have a couple big picture questions --
1. Based on your research, where (if anywhere) did we as scientists/scientific communicators go wrong initially in communicating about climate change?
and
2. Do you see something similar happening currently in another scientific subject? I.e. what is the "climate change" hot-button issue of 10 or 20 years from now, and how can we avoid making it a controversy?

Kaitlin, Paul, and Alex: In the United States, where we in particular struggle with understanding and believing in climate change, well-funded denial and skepticism is a huge barrier. Recent research has found that climate change messages can help people understand climate change, but pairing a climate change message with an additional skeptical message can offset these positive outcomes.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12171/full. This is a problem because even though polling suggests that only about 10-12% of the US population are really skeptical about climate change, they are a vocal minority.

What can be done to help is to talk amongst your friends and family and talk to your elected officials about what you think about climate change so that there are other voices in the room. Part of what we were doing in our paper was to try to find ways to get people thinking about the pros and cons of different approaches so that they can engage in these types of discussions. We found that using an analogy to a progressive medical disease might be one way to get people thinking more deeply about what to do about climate change,the costs and benefits of different actions and the results of postponing action.

How do you address the anti intellectualism aspect - specifically I've heard that those who want to fight climate change (generally a liberal agenda) are in it for the money and are scamming people in the process with the climate change rant.
When I suggest that the conservative plan to drill baby drill is ruining the environment AND lying to you in plain sight they seem to prefer it to the idea of change for renewable energy or even caring about the environment at all.
Even the judeo Christian idea of preserving the earth is a moot point with these types.
How do you convey the importance of acknowledging cc and changing behaviors to avoid to these types?
Thanks and we appreciate your work !!!

I'm wondering what effect do you think in how one would deliver there talk about climate change. I think one of the major problems is that we still ask people do they ''believe'' in climate change. Like its a matter of faith. Do you think its time to try a different method of communication for the wider audience? Like people don't ask do we believe that E=mc2. We just take the scientists word for it.

Kaitlin, Paul, Alex:
Climate change is less like E=MC2 and more like a medical diagnosis in which we can’t be exactly sure of what is going to happen or where or when the biggest impacts will occur. What we would argue is that the question to ask is not whether you “believe” in climate change but whether you are willing to accept the risks that climate science suggests are likely to come true? Climate science indicates that there are things that can be done to reduce the risks that can have long term benefits, some of them at fairly low costs. But waiting to act increases the risks and raises the costs for when we have act on them later.

This AMA is being permanently archived by The Winnower, a publishing platform that offers traditional scholarly publishing tools to traditional and non-traditional scholarly outputs—because scholarly communication doesn’t just happen in journals.

I've read when trying to influence anti-vaxers it's far better to show them a few pictures of a diseased baby in a normal, loving environment than it is to show the baby in an extreme condition- indicating that the anti-vaxer recognizes and resists scare tactics. Have you found the same true with climate change?

Second question- As I understand it, the majority of people actually accept climate change, but politicians still act like they do not. Is there any work being done that you know of that addresses this disconnect and how it might be remedied?

What role should news, media, and journalism in general play in explaining climate change? Further, how can we convince people who cling to shady or debunked arguments against human made climate change?

What do you believe is the best elevator pitch someone can give to an individual who doesn't believe in climate change? Do you try to convince them on the science, or do you approach it from some other angle? When it comes down to it, most people I speak to who don't think climate change is real typically do not have an understanding of how the scientific method fundamentally​ works. I've also found if you want to appeal to someone you really have to stay clear of anything related to politics or your argument gets swamped in partisan ideologies, and they become very defensive.

Another PLOS ONE paper published last year discussed the impacts of dietary change on greenhouse gas emissions, showing that adopting more sustainable eating practices, namely reducing the amount of animal-based foods consumed, could provide benefits for both the environment and health.

There's a definitive connection between animal agriculture and climate change and yet it seems to be one of the less discussed aspects of climate change, even among environmentalist, much less the public as a whole. Why do you think it's so difficult for people to make the connection between their dietary practices and animal agriculture, and its profound effects on climate change? Would the use of analogies be useful in bridging that gap and if so, which analogies would be most useful?

A recent story about a poll brought up an interesting contrast. A majority of Americans polled DO think climate change will impact the country, but not them - not their own backyard.
Could you talk about the psychology of this?

In the article you published, can you please comment on why specifically these analogies were chosen to be tested? Are they normally used to explain climate change to people?
Do you have any indications or assumptions as to why the medical analogy works better than the other two?
Can the "climate sceptics" introduce bias by presenting the analogies weaker in influence, not because they are not clear, but because they come with their own prejudice?

As far as I can see this study concentrated more on analogies convincing people that action is needed in spite of lack of absolute certainty in prediction of climate change consequences. Are there studies oriented on the use of analogies in explanation of the process and mechanisms of climate change, and specifically in dispelling the misinformation and falsehood about climate and human influence on climate change?

Over the last years and decades, we've seen this issue become not just a political one, but ideological as well, in many instances hindering proper debate both about the science and the potential actions. In your opinion is there a way of defusing these ideological tensions and returning the issue in the less hot-head and more open-minded forum?

Sorry for the wall of text, once the questions start flowing, it's hard to stop :) Just pick any that you feel like answering.

So is there any point? Like for me to want to get married or have kids or even look at my future? I'm 23. I'm scared. Borderline depressed. I don't want to live in ignorance, but it just seems like a waste at this point. Sorry.

How would you suggest breaking through the narrow media bubble that so many science deniers inhabit? For example, a recent Harvard/MIT study published this week in the Columbia Journalism Review demonstrates that online shares of articles are limited to an incredibly small number of highly partisan sources among conservatives -- far more than among liberals. That's consistent with nearly every conversation I have with deniers, who either cite one of those propaganda sources or vaguely allude to stories that come from them.

What % of all the greenhouse gases is carbon dioxide? Isn't it less than 1%? If I remember correctly water vapor H2O is by far the largest greenhouse gas and accounts for about 60-80% of the greenhouse effect.

As a global warming skeptic, please explain how carbon dioxide can be responsible for planet wide increase in the greenhouse effect (warming) when CO2 is only a fraction (<1%) of the greenhouse effect.

I don't think anyone denies the fact that CO2 levels are rising, I just completely doubt the idea that this one tiny greenhouse gas could actually affect the weather on this planet. I think a more reasonable explanation is increased solar activity is increasing the amount of water vapor (THE LARGEST GREENHOUSE GAS) in the atmosphere which in turn is warming the planet.

Do global warming extremist ever feel bad that CO2 is plant food, and by trying to reduce CO2 they are actually reducing plant life on the planet? I believe plant life was at its greatest when volcanic activity on the planet was higher and spewing tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, which provided for the huge plant life which created more oxygen as a byproduct, allowing for larger animal life.

I will admit though, that even as a skeptic, the amount of filthy pollution in the air in places like China IS a problem, but I wouldn't go as far as saying it's warming the planet. I swear humans are so egotistical to think we actually have the power to affect the WEATHER on this planet. Weather is simply the transfer of heat received by the SUN.

True science is never settled, the odds of a theory being correct because more people believe has nothing to do with what history has shown us, such as everyone thinking the world was flat and the earth is the center of the universe, most scientists were wrong. I think it's foolish for ordinary people to reject other explanations because "most scientists believe this so it must be true" and refuse to hear other theories.

I have also looked into scientists who provide alternative theories such as sun spot cycles etc, and what pissed me off is how these scientists are treated by the scientific community, most are excommunicated and viewed as idiotic/evil and have ulterior motives.. this is simply unacceptable. Science should be debated and not treat by silencing people, the global warming community is somewhat of a cult now.

My 2nd problem with the global warming cult is that ultimately it will be used by government as another excuse to take away more freedoms or collect more of our labor through tax.. carbon tax, energy consumption tax, CO2 tax for shipping and flying, these are all on the horizon and will only benefit the government, not the planet.

H20 absorbs a pretty broad section of radiation, but C02 absorbs in places where H20 does not. By increasing C02, you absorb more radiation in places that H20 doesn't, thereby increasing the temperature.

Simplistically, there is a positive feedback cycle with H20. But its get complicated quickly because H20 doesn't behave the same way other gases do in the atmosphere.

I don't argue with this statement that CO2 absorbs radiation differently than H2O, I just sincerely doubt that this is enough to heat the planet since CO2 is such a tiny portion of atmospheric gases/greenhouse gases. It's just not enough. This couldn't have been the reason for the previous periods of higher and lower temperatures on the planet since humans weren't emitting CO2..

I read the summary, doesn't really say anything at all about water vapors greenhouse gas effect except that water vapors effect is different based on where it is in the atmosphere.. not very helpful.

Water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, it only accounts for like 2% of the atmosphere. Its role in the climate is directly proportional to the temperature, so it doesn't drive climate change until after something else happens.

C02 has an effect disproportionate to its concentration because it absorbs radiation right where the earth emits it.

"Its role in the climate is directly proportional to the temperature, so it doesn't drive climate change until after something else happens." - Hmmm something else happens as in, Idk, the sun causing more or less evaporation? I agree

How do you respond when people bring up the University of East Anglia email scandal? Leaked emails showed the head of the program and Michael Mann were trying to find ways to exclude contradictory data from their sets and how to keep other scientists from publishing anything that didn't fit their theories.

This is one of the most frequent arguments I encounter. It makes it hard to argue that the science is sound and settled when prominent scientists are caught manipulating their own data and trying to suppress research that might disprove their theories.